0
Research Papers: Materials and Fabrication

Neutron Diffraction Measurement and Numerical Simulation to Study the Effect of Repair Depth on Residual Stress in 316L Stainless Steel Repair Weld

[+] Author and Article Information
Wenchun Jiang

College of Chemical Engineering,
China University of Petroleum (East China),
Qingdao 266555, China
e-mail: jiangwenchun@126.com

Yun Luo

College of Chemical Engineering,
China University of Petroleum (East China),
Qingdao 266555, China

BingYing Wang

College of Mechanical and
Electronic Engineering,
China University of Petroleum (East China), Qingdao 266555, China

Wanchuck Woo

Neutron Science Division,
Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute,
1045 Daedeok-daero, Yuseong-gu,
Daejeon 305-353, South Korea

S. T. Tu

Key Laboratory of Pressure System and
Safety (MOE),
School of Mechanical and Power Engineering,
East China University of Science and Technology,
Shanghai 200237, China

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received June 13, 2014; final manuscript received August 27, 2014; published online February 20, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Marina Ruggles-Wrenn.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 137(4), 041406 (Aug 01, 2015) (12 pages) Paper No: PVT-14-1089; doi: 10.1115/1.4028515 History: Received June 13, 2014; Revised August 27, 2014; Online February 20, 2015

Welding is often used to repair the defects in pressure vessels and piping, but residual stresses are generated inevitably and have a great effect on structure integrity. According to the defect size, different repair depth will be carried out, which leads to different stress state. In this paper, the effect of repair depth on residual stress in 316L stainless steel repair weld has been studied by neutron diffraction measurement and finite element modeling (FEM). The results show that the residual stresses in the deep repair are larger than those in shallow repair weld, because the deep repair involves multipass welding and brings a serious work hardening. In the weld metal, the longitudinal stress has exceeded the yield stress, and increases slightly with the increase of repair depth. In contrast to the longitudinal stress, the transverse stress is more sensitive to the repair depth. With the increase of repair depth, the transverse stress increases and even exceeds the yield strength as the repair depth is 45% of the plate thickness. At the bottom surface of the plate and heat affected zone (HAZ), both the longitudinal and transverse stresses increase as the repair depth increases. It also shows that the mixed hardening model gives the best agreement with the measurement, while isotropic and kinematic hardening models cause an overestimation and underestimation, respectively. Therefore, the mixed hardening model is recommended for the prediction of residual stresses.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic of the repair weld sample

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Cross-sectional macrostructure: shallow (a) and deep (b) repair weld

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Finite element meshing for model (a) 1 and (b) 3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Thermal material properties as a function of temperature

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

(a) Isotropic, (b) kinematic, and (c) mixed hardening models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

The yield stress and plastic strain as a function of temperature for isotropic hardening model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Residual stress along P1 for model 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Residual stress along P2 for mode 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Contours of LD by (a) isotropic, (b) mixed, and (c) kinematic hardening model for model 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Contours of TD by (a) isotropic, (b) mixed, and (c) kinematic hardening model for model 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Residual stress along P3 of model 3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Residual stress along P4 of model 3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Contours of LD by (a) isotropic, (b) mixed, and (c) kinematic hardening model for model 3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Contours of TD by (a) isotropic, (b) mixed, and (c) kinematic hardening model for model 3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Microhardness and equivalent plastic strain through P1 for model 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Microhardness and equivalent plastic strain through P3 for model 3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Microstructures at location (a) 4, (b) 3, (c) 2, and (d) 1 for model 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig 18

Microstructures at location (a) 1, (b) 2, (c) 3, (d) 4, (e) 5, (f) 6, (g) 7, and (h) 8 for model 3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Effect of repair depth on (a) longitudinal and (b) transverse residual stress

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Effect of repair depth on longitudinal stress in HAZ

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

(a) Longitudinal and (b) transverse residual stress in the bottom surface

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Equivalent plastic strain of the middle cross section

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In